DISTRICT RESPONSE TO CHILD ABUSE REPORT BLASTED

Grand jury critical of schools’ procedures; parents say children are still left vulnerable

The San Diego Unified School District has formed a focus group to address lingering questions about how it deals with adult-to-student bullying, according to a recently released report.

The district, in a response dated Aug. 13 to the county civil grand jury’s May report that criticized the district’s handling of such bullying, disagreed with the majority of the panel’s findings and recommendations. But it also said the new group is an acknowledgment that the district can do more to protect children.

“The district … values participation by involved stakeholders, including parents, staff and community members, as well as the role of other public agencies in providing for the protection of students,” the response said. “With those concepts in mind, the district has created a Superintendent’s Focus Group to … create a broad public agency coalition to create consensus for best practices for investigation of complaints alleging adult-to-child bullying and other forms of child abuse.”

Parents involved with the focus group include Judy Neufeld-Fernandez and Susan Hopps-Tatum, who have pushed the district to take a stronger stance against emotional abuse by teachers. They complained that a teacher at Hardy Elementary School was abusive toward children for years. Their kids said the instructor would do things such as hurl books and publicly humiliate students who had body odor by spraying them with aerosol.

The parents urged the district to turn over adult-to-student bullying complaints to law enforcement, which state law requires, instead of investigating them internally.

Neufeld-Fernandez expressed disappointment with the district’s Aug. 13 response, which she said sets up a critical moment for the stakeholder group when it meets Thursday afternoon at district headquarters.

“I would call the report predictable, pathetic and a perpetuation of the status quo that leaves our children vulnerable to predators, child abusers and neglectful staff,” she said. “When someone comes forward with these complaints, they get the runaround. That is why Thursday is paramount. Will the district preserve the status quo or effect meaningful reform?”

Representatives from the San Diego Police Department, City Attorney’s Office and the County Department of Child Welfare Services are scheduled to attend the session.

In its report, the civil grand jury said the district lacked a policy on adult-to-student bullying and that its process for addressing complaints was fraught with conflicts of interest. For example, the panel said, administrators review appeals of decisions that they made themselves.

Among the civil grand jury’s recommendations: The district should eliminate all conflicts of interest and give people timely feedback on the status of their complaints.

In its response, the district said it changed who handles child-abuse complaints — replacing area superintendents and school administrators with the deputy superintendent of support services.

But the district disagreed with findings that it lacked procedures for addressing this type of bullying. It noted two codes that outline the process for reporting child abuse to authorities and investigating such matters from an administrative angle.

It also said employee privacy and other confidentiality constraints limit how much information it can give to complainants.

“The district recognizes this must be frustrating to parents,” the report stated. “However, an ongoing, in-depth dialogue with a parent will undermine the prosecution of any disciplinary or criminal matter.”

The district said allegations of emotional abuse often require “much clearer information and evidence,” and that administrators might take confidential intermediate steps to discipline an employee.

“Sometimes there is little valid evidence to proceed to criminal prosecution or to disciplinary termination,” the district said in its August response. “Also, under the tenets of progressive discipline, the sanctions imposed must fit the evidence found and the behavior identified, particularly if it is a first-time offense.”